Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

[ronyell]

i 100% stand behind this list in this order...

TOP 3 greatest basketball players:
1 - Hakeem Olajuwon
2 - Larry Bird
3 - Michael Jordan

I derived this list being someone that watched all of these guys in their prime (Bird in the latter) & feel as if i viewed it objectively, taking away widely accepted public opinion, hearsay from people that didn't get to see much from all three & not using the ever simple "who's won more championships" argument (in which case Robert Horry would be number 2 on this list after Bill Russell...)

ALL things considered; both offensively & defensively, who did the most with the least, CARRIED their entire team on both ends night in & night out & had the most to offer on the court is how i came up with my opinion of the order of this list.

after doing so in my head, Hakeem was the clear cut number one.
after that it was debatable but i gave the edge to Bird considering the range at which he played the game & the difficulty of the things he did considering his lack of athleticism that MJ did possess. MJ ended up at three to me simply because i feel that his athleticism was ahead of it's time & that WITH his honed skill & competitiveness along with the "jordan rules" gave him an edge IN THAT ERA but I (my opinion) feel that he would not have been AS successful in todays era where everyone is just as athletic as him, as to where i feel Hakeem & Bird's games would dominate any era.

i'm aware that i'm stating a highly unpopular opinion but i'm just wanting to hear other's thoughts, theories & if anyone else sees it like i do.

[SteelersFreak]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

This thread should go well.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

More lists? C'mon guys.

[Moses Shuttlesworth]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

I could justify this list. Makes sense.

[ojandpizza]

Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

Your list makes perfect sense, when you put all those "holds" on it.. If you just take away things like "not counting championships" and "because he wasn't as athletic" and "did more with less" it's tough to judge fairly because you are in fact taking away the players strengths.. I for one though could care a less about championships though.. I think great players need to win at least one, just to put them at that level, but in general it's a team award and I hate when the shear number of rings is used to value someone higher than someone else.

If this was a true who did more with less then Bird shouldn't even crack your top 3, but I think you were just specifying that aspect of the argument to put Hakeem ahead of MJ.. Furthermore I think the argument that MJ's athleticism wouldn't make him such a freak in today's game could be applied to the same with Bird and his outside shooting and lack of athleticism..

You point out that Jordan likely wouldn't have as large of an advantage now as he did then, yet didn't factor that Bird would probably go from average to below average.. Which I'm not 100% sure with them playing in today's era should be the basis of ranking which of them is better.. They would both have adjustments to make just as players from today would going backwards.. IMO.

As for Hakeem he was a great, great player. But he really only had those two seasons that really separated him apart from the guys in the next tier down. And those two years happened to be when MJ was gone from basketball.. Since they were drafted together and shared the same prime area of their careers, I think it's almost obvious to see which player was better. Jordan was that era, and meant just as much to his team as Hakeem while meaning much more to the league in general.

I agree that Hakeem didn't really have quite the sidekicks Jordan had when he was winning championships. But when Jordan was making routine ECF appearances, winning scoring titles, and MVPs, he really didn't have a super strong team either.. He had Pippen who eventually became good but wasn't there yet, and Horace who was really good within his somewhat small role.. It's not as if Jordan had a stacked team from day one.. Both players carried huge individual loads for their team.

I know many people who think Bird is better than Jordan. But the Hakeem thing I can't get on board with.. Outside just a couple amazing seasons he had I really don't think much separated him from David Robinson, a guy who wouldn't even crack most people's top 20-30 list. Both great two way guys.. I think the one series Hakeem had where he got the best of Robinson has somewhat propelled his image higher than what it probably should be.

Honestly I think the "having great post moves" in general tends to overrated both McHale and Hakeem.. It's nice to have a huge arsenal of moves down low but just having those doesn't necessarily make you better than someone else.. Guys like Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq didn't have just a ton of moves, but were just as successful, actually more so, than those guys offensively.. The "amount" of moves you have isn't nearly as important as how effective you are with what you do have.. If that makes sense.

And I know you are going to get a lot of, not more lists, or not another list, etc for this thread.. But I honestly like the discussions.. Some people like lists, some don't, I don't really think it matters either way.. Everyone is going to have a different way to list players based on their own opinions, and we usually have some pretty good discussions that come from posts like this. Making a list is no different that saying "player A is better than player B" or "so and so is the best at this position", etc.. Only difference is a number in front of their name, it's really not a big deal.

[ronyell]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

Your list makes perfect sense, when you put all those "holds" on it.. If you just take away things like "not counting championships" and "because he wasn't as athletic" and "did more with less" it's tough to judge fairly because you are in fact taking away the players strengths.. I for one though could care a less about championships though.. I think great players need to win at least one, just to put them at that level, but in general it's a team award and I hate when the shear number of rings is used to value someone higher than someone else.

If this was a true who did more with less then Bird shouldn't even crack your top 3, but I think you were just specifying that aspect of the argument to put Hakeem ahead of MJ.. Furthermore I think the argument that MJ's athleticism wouldn't make him such a freak in today's game could be applied to the same with Bird and his outside shooting and lack of athleticism..

You point out that Jordan likely wouldn't have as large of an advantage now as he did then, yet didn't factor that Bird would probably go from average to below average.. Which I'm not 100% sure with them playing in today's era should be the basis of ranking which of them is better.. They would both have adjustments to make just as players from today would going backwards.. IMO.

As for Hakeem he was a great, great player. But he really only had those two seasons that really separated him apart from the guys in the next tier down. And those two years happened to be when MJ was gone from basketball.. Since they were drafted together and shared the same prime area of their careers, I think it's almost obvious to see which player was better. Jordan was that era, and meant just as much to his team as Hakeem while meaning much more to the league in general.

I agree that Hakeem didn't really have quite the sidekicks Jordan had when he was winning championships. But when Jordan was making routine ECF appearances, winning scoring titles, and MVPs, he really didn't have a super strong team either.. He had Pippen who eventually became good but wasn't there yet, and Horace who was really good within his somewhat small role.. It's not as if Jordan had a stacked team from day one.. Both players carried huge individual loads for their team.

I know many people who think Bird is better than Jordan. But the Hakeem thing I can't get on board with.. Outside just a couple amazing seasons he had I really don't think much separated him from David Robinson, a guy who wouldn't even crack most people's top 20-30 list. Both great two way guys.. I think the one series Hakeem had where he got the best of Robinson has somewhat propelled his image higher than what it probably should be.

Honestly I think the "having great post moves" in general tends to overrated both McHale and Hakeem.. It's nice to have a huge arsenal of moves down low but just having those doesn't necessarily make you better than someone else.. Guys like Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq didn't have just a ton of moves, but were just as successful, actually more so, than those guys offensively.. The "amount" of moves you have isn't nearly as important as how effective you are with what you do have.. If that makes sense.

And I know you are going to get a lot of, not more lists, or not another list, etc for this thread.. But I honestly like the discussions.. Some people like lists, some don't, I don't really think it matters either way.. Everyone is going to have a different way to list players based on their own opinions, and we usually have some pretty good discussions that come from posts like this. Making a list is no different that saying "player A is better than player B" or "so and so is the best at this position", etc.. Only difference is a number in front of their name, it's really not a big deal.

great post... yeah i never really come into this sub-forum & am generally not big on "lists" at all so it's funny to get the "ohhh another list" posts lol...

i'm just wanting to hear others' points of view on this. as someone that got to see Dream night in & night out; i know why i make my case along with him being top 5 in 5 categories year in & year out & a few of them being perimeter player categories. although he gets props from the basketball world, i feel like he may not get the looks as being one of the most complete players ever. posted this thread to get more broad opinion from people that only saw him play on a national stage & hope to get more feedback.

[wwharton]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

great post... yeah i never really come into this sub-forum & am generally not big on "lists" at all so it's funny to get the "ohhh another list" posts lol...

i'm just wanting to hear others' points of view on this. as someone that got to see Dream night in & night out; i know why i make my case along with him being top 5 in 5 categories year in & year out & a few of them being perimeter player categories. although he gets props from the basketball world, i feel like he may not get the looks as being one of the most complete players ever. posted this thread to get more broad opinion from people that only saw him play on a national stage & hope to get more feedback.

I'm VERY high on Hakeem, but there is no way he can be listed above Jordan. OJ pretty much just broke it down but they were in the same era and he didn't sniff the spotlight until Jordan was gone. Why not argue why he should get more recognition than he does, and compare him to others that get mentioned over him? It's always talk of how someone is the best ever that knock down the discussion bc it's shooting too high.

I've got no problem with the thread but it'd be much easier to read your posts if you didn't center all of the text.

[ronyell]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

I'm VERY high on Hakeem, but there is no way he can be listed above Jordan. OJ pretty much just broke it down but they were in the same era and he didn't sniff the spotlight until Jordan was gone. Why not argue why he should get more recognition than he does, and compare him to others that get mentioned over him? It's always talk of how someone is the best ever that knock down the discussion bc it's shooting too high.

I've got no problem with the thread but it'd be much easier to read your posts if you didn't center all of the text.

my OCD is to blame

[Dice]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

While I wouldn't put Hakeem as "The Greatest Basketball Player" in my book, he's close and can't argue the points that ronyell makes on it. As you all know, Jordan and Hakeem came in at the same time. However, most would argue that in their first 2 seasons, Hakeem was the better player considering he and Sampson lead the Rockets into the NBA Finals in only Hakeem's second season. Jordan in his first two seasons barely made it to the playoffs. Now, this is no fault of Jordan's since he didn't have a sufficient team yet. However, from year 3 and on, Jordan propelled himself to be probably the greatest basketball player in NBA history...at least in my book.

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate for a second. One of the arguments that most people make when measuring greatness is who are their contemporaries and where do they rank among them? This to me is what makes a guy like Muhammad Ali the greatest boxer of all-time. He didn't post an undefeated record nor did he dominate in Mike Tyson fashion. What Ali did towards the end of his prime was be the best boxer in the best era of boxing for heavyweights. If most boxing fans remember, when Ali was reinstated into boxing he had to deal with the likes of: Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Ken Norton Sr. and Floyd Patterson. All of them Hall of Fame boxers. Ali beat all of these fighters at least once and was the best among all of them.

Going back to basketball, you look at Jordan, Olajuwon and Bird during their peak years and you won't find much argument that they all were the best in the game at their respected positions. Looking at Jordan's contemporaries during his peak years you had guys like Clyde Drexler, Joe Dumars, Reggie Miller and Mitch Richmond. All of them HOF'er. A guy like Bird had to compete with the likes of James Worthy, Alex English, Bernard King, Dominique Wilkins and to a degree Julius Erving because he was approaching the end of his career when Bird hit his stride. Then you had Olajuwon who during his prime had to deal with the likes of Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning and to a degree Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Robert Parish. And although Kareem was past his prime, he still was an effective center. Malone still battled Olajuwon while he was on the down slope of his prime. Parish was the same.

Now looking at the list of HOF'ers each player had to deal with, Olajuwon probably had the best group. In Olajuwon's group, all of them were first ballot HOF'ers. Some of them were league MVP's during the course of their careers. And no disrespect to the other group of players for the other two players but Olajuwon did play in the league when the center position was the strongest. Many would say he was the best out of his group.

That would be is my argument if I thought Olajuwon was the best ever. Unfortunately, that is not my thought. Michael Jordan still holds that mantle until someone comes along and dominates the game like he did.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

It's hard to make a list like this because you can't compare the bigs to the non-bigs. The job descriptions are too different. I will say that Michael Jordan was the best non-big and Bill Russell the top big.

On quantity, Hakeem's competition has the edge. But quality? You can't match Russell's peers. He had to face off against Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond on a daily basis. That was certainly the NBA's golden era.

[ojandpizza]

Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

I agree with Dice on the Hakeem vs his peers being better, but the thing is Hakeem didn't stand out from those guys aside from a couple playoff series.. As far as the entire body of work Robinson was up there with Hakeem for most of their career, Shaq was a bigger offensive force despite not having as well rounded of a game, Ewing was a step below them but in the opposite conference anyways so he didn't face him much, and Kareem IMO blows all of their careers out of the water. Shaq at 22 years old pretty much matched Hakeem individually in the 95 finals.

I understand the point of the argument, but idk how much I agree with it entirely.. It would be much different if Hakeem actually blew all of those guys out if the water but IMO he didn't.. What stood out mostly with Hakeem was his unique versatility.. If that hands down makes Hakeem better than guys like Shaq or Kareem my question would be then why is Kevin Garnett not better than Tim Duncan? I think that's the same type of argument we are getting to with this discussion, not so much with Hakeem > Shaq, but definitely Hakeem > Kareem.. Similar IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMagic]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

No love for McGrady?

He performed better than Jordan in head to head matchups. He also had better numbers facing the same competition, in the same conference, and in the same era.

If you think Jordan is the greatest, you have to at least have T-Mac in your top 3 all time.

[ronyell]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

thinking i should come in this sub-forum more often... very good points here.

i think for me, i am a bit jaded by the fact that MJ revolutionized the sport & that is why people recognize him SO much (not to mention his takent of course) but Hakeem simply did not get that fan-fare or luxury. for those that don't believe he should be considered the G.O.A.T.; understandable but when you look at the totality of what he did, how could he not be head & shoulders above just about every other center in the game at least. we all know the laundry list of ceneters to whom people would make an argument and why but Hakeem didnt average 20 rpg or 50 ppg nor did he capture 12 titles simply because that was not something that would happen in his era of basketball.

for those that would say that he only flourished in one playoff run or that he only won when Michael left the game are simple not 100% accurate. as far as the Rockets getting to finals to play the Bulls... meh but when they played the Bulls... they contained the Bulls & won (partly because of Mad Max too lol.)

point being we never know what would've happened if the Dream met MJ in the Finals but those who got to see Hakeem more than occassionally know the level that he rose to when on big stages... it was insane & utterly unstoppable...

and to make my bigger point, almost every great player that you would put in contention for greatest of all time, did it on a supremely high level in many aspects of the game not just one or two & centers for certain did not dod the things that Dream did. they may have had more dominant offensive numbers or concentrated numbers in a different area but nothing like what a=Hakeem did.

without me looking at stats... Hakeem did these things at the highest levels throughout a career:

- top 5 scorer
- top 5 rebounder
- number one shot blocker
- top 5 in steals
- high basketball IQ
- looker room leader (after getting past his anger issues)
- led a Kenny Smith PG'd team to the playoffs repeatedly
- revolutionized the post position
- had THREE unstoppable moves as compared to some other players' one... #hinthint

i'm sure i missing many things but my point is just how much he impacted the game & in how many areas he carried a team when the other team knew night in & night out what moves he was gonna do & that he was offensive option number 1, 2 & 3; to keep him off of the boards because the Rockets only had one other player over 6'10" other than him for most of those years; to be aware of him on the defensive end because he was the anchor of what i would favorably call "not-the-best-defense" & all in all he was the Rockets EVERYthing EVERYnight.

thats quite a burden to carry at 7'0", 255 lbs in the 80's & 90's. i could ramble on for days but i have long assumed that most people got to see the popular players on the popular teams at that time because there weren't as many media outlets & thats where a lot of opinions were derived from. just as i didn;t get to see many Isaiah Thomas games but know he was "pretty good", i feel thats where Hakeem gets lost in the shuffle. the guy was flat out unstoppable... difference is, he only dominated the ball when he felt he needed to.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

without me looking at stats... Hakeem did these things at the highest levels throughout a career:

- top 5 scorer
- top 5 rebounder
- number one shot blocker
- top 5 in steals
- high basketball IQ
- looker room leader (after getting past his anger issues)
- led a Kenny Smith PG'd team to the playoffs repeatedly
- revolutionized the post position
- had THREE unstoppable moves as compared to some other players' one... #hinthint

Hakeem isn't truly the number one shot-blocker of all time. He would rank fourth behind Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Nate Thurmond. He had the quickness to steal post entry passes but when playing behind on post defense he wasn't quite as good as the aforementioned trio.

Hakeem didn't always read the floor correctly and would take some foolish fouls.

Hakeem didn't revolutionize the post position, Bill Russell did. Although he was certainly one of the descendants of Russell.

Hakeem would usually catch the ball and face-up on the wing. From there he would drop step, counter drop step, or drive for a hook shot. You are right he was just about unstoppable.

[ojandpizza]

Re: Can anyone else objectively agree with this top 3 list.

I'm just not sure most well rounded always = better.. If you wanted to call Hakeem the most well rounded big man ever then you would have a stronger case IMO. It's not even really about him averaging Wilt-esque numbers though, at least for me anyways, stats from that era are extremely bloated.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk